Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on Jul 28, 2019 15:39:31 GMT

And speaking of low, low budget horror movies, last night I watched the Canadian-made torture porn The Scarehouse, made entirely in Windsor, Ontario. Two young woman designed a carnival-like funhouse that they use for their own personal torture chamber. They use this funhouse to lure in former friends to get revenge on them for a sorority party incident that got the two girls railroaded into jail.

This turned out to be fairly good. I was impressed by how the filmmakers were able to stretch their poverty budget ($273,000) to make the movie look like a bigger budgeted film. It also benefits from decent acting and an intriguing idea that has some nice surprises in store for the viewer. Worth checking out.

"Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his naturewill allow." Frankenstein

Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Jul 29, 2019 21:18:50 GMT

Or, as it's titled on TV here, A Company of Wolves (though when the film starts, the title that comes up onscreen has 'The' in place of 'A'. I don't know why anyone would object to the word 'The').

This is probably my favourite werewolf movie ever. Though I never did realise that the lead character’s name was Rosaleen, as when anyone said her name, it always sounded to me like Rosalee. It wasn’t until sometime later when looking at the IMDB page for the movie I discovered what her name actually was (or maybe I discovered it when watching the end credits. I forget).

What I love about this movie first and foremost is the ‘atmosphere’. It’s downright unsettling throughout. I first watched this movie when I was quite young-ish, so that’s probably why it had such an impact on me. There were quite a few truly disturbing moments in the film – the most obvious one being the face-ripping-off werewolf transformation. That was fairly disturbing when I first saw it, plus it was totally unexpected that it was going to get so gruesome (the movie was on during the middle of the day when I first watched it on TV, so not exactly the time to be expecting to see something like that).

Another disturbing moment (not so much now, but still somewhat unnerving) was Angela Lansbury getting decapitated and her head shattering like a vase. That was certainly ‘WTF’-worthy. On rewatch, though, it was just sort of morbidly amusing.

I remember when I watched the movie for the first time, I found Sarah Patterson pretty alluring as Rosaleen. She had this quality about her that made her almost seem ‘otherworldly’ (which, given all the other strangeness in the movie, was probably appropriate). She'd sometimes act a certain way that made me wonder what was going through her head (nevermind the fact that she was told repeatedly by Granny to stick to the path and avoid men whose eyebrows met in the middle...and she kind of ignored that advice in the end and got cozy with one such creepy unibrowed dude).

When I first watched the film, I couldn’t help but feel a bit sorry for the young guy who clearly had the hots for Rosaleen in the movie. She wasn’t overly nice to him. However, on rewatch, I found him to be rather irritating (and he just wouldn't take 'no' for an answer/take the hint that she just wasn't that into him. I guess there's a reason he was credited as 'Amorous Boy'.

The scene where Rosaleen (or rather, some other version of her) arrived in the white limo, dressed in white and sporting a blonde wig, along with Terence Stamp as the Devil, I found rather unsettling when I first watched the movie. The way the kid practically unhinged his jaw as he was yelling "Noooo!" over and over was particularly weird.

I also much preferred that they went for ‘normal’ wolves with glowing eyes than trying to create some sort of monstrous beasts that simply did not work.

It was probably cheaper just to add the ‘glowing effect’ to the eyes of them anyway. This was also the first time I’d ever seen a werewolf transformation done where the wolf snout emerged from the human mouth. It wasn’t until much later in time that the TV series Hemlock Grove came along and did this as well, having somewhat ‘refined’ the effect (and added even more grossness), though I’ll always remember this movie as being the first (that I know of) one to do it (then again, I haven’t seen that many werewolf movies, so maybe others beat them to it. I wouldn’t know).

I liked that the movie was just basically made up of big sets. I’ve grown so tired of CGI settings/scenery in things now, that I really appreciate how ‘real’ the sets felt in this movie. If done right, they can make you buy into the world which the characters inhabit (even if, on closer inspection, you might be able to see the ‘fakeness’ of it all). I never saw ‘sets’, just this world in which Rosaleen was part of – and what a strange/scary world it was.

I also liked that there were separate little stories within the main story of the film. They added to what was already an unsettling feeling to the movie, I thought. The wedding scene was kind of creepy, but at the same time sort of had a ‘lightness’ to it as well (might’ve been the music). Regarding the music/score used - I thought it added SO much to the film. It helped give an 'eerie' feeling throughout...but especially at the end.

Speaking of the ending...I think it could be debated whether the entire film is 'all a dream' or not, but the first question asked on the movie's IMDB page in the FAQ section has a really good, solid answer that I think explains the narrative structure of the film and what is/isn't a dream.

Yes, it may 'just' be wolves busting through glass and paintings to enter Rosaleen's room as she's asleep, but the whole atmosphere throughout the film is unsettling - and that, combined with the music playing as the pack of wolves run up to her room and Rosaleen's bone-chilling scream, are why I find the ending so effectively creepy. Up until this point, Rosaleen had seemed pretty 'chill'/rather calm around wolves...although that may have been because she thought it was a dream up until the end where the dream seemed to bleed into actual reality.

Anyway, I just find the ending very effective with its eeriness (it gives me shivers every time) and I like how the film plays around with dreams and reality, blurring the lines between the two - that's why it remains my favourite werewolf film.

Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on Jul 30, 2019 1:19:16 GMT

RACE WITH THE DEVIL 1975 -- What can I say? It holds up very well--expertly made spookiness--a siege horror movie in a sense--unusual for the cast being over 30.

When you race with the Devil you better be faster than Hell.

Precisely. If RWTD was made today the leads would be annoying pot-smoking millennials who constantly take selfies of each other, and the girls would be busty bimbos. Quite a contrast to the '75 version which had average middle-aged couples; completely sympathetic people.

Post by lostinlimbo on Jul 31, 2019 7:11:38 GMT

Tokyo Ghoul S (2019) virtually continues the story that began in Tokyo Ghoul. This time the white doves, and even human characters get little screen time, with the focus squarely on the ghouls. This follow up looks a little more polished and even stylish in the way it was shot (despite some abrupt editing between transitioning scenes), possibly a larger budget, but then again the film holds back on the CGI and action set-pieces which makes you second guess. There are a couple striking scenes, like the opening introduction of the creepy ghoul villain, the ghoul restaurant horrifyingly in full force and film's final ghoulish standoff. Outside of those moments, everything else felt slow and less memorable. Although I did like the constant interactions between Masataka Kubota and Maika Yamamoto's lead characters. Sure there are high stakes, but its more talky and burdened by emotional weight. In some ways it feels more personal and invested in its character's turmoils than the first film, but less exciting and frenetic in its action-thrills. It still provides a WTF, or brutal moment here and there, but the rush is over in seconds.

Kubota's half-ghoul, half-human character Kaneki feels like he took a back-step and in doing so came across much weaker. It definitely shows in the training scene between Kubota and Kirishima early on. He's still battling his affliction, and scared of transforming. There are moments when you think he would break out. Being pushed to the edge, but his character keeps it in check for the majority of the film. Which for me at times became frustrating. He transforms only once, for around 10 or so seconds and that's at the very end. While his trademark mask isn't even seen. It's Nobuyuki Suzuki who steals the show from everyone as Shuu Tsukiyama. A murderous ghoul with epicurean desires and suave fashion sense. He takes real fancy to Kaneki's scent. Tsukiyama truly camps it up, some moments made me chuckle with his over-the-top mannerisms and I don't know if I was meant to either. After while I found his character's actions began to get tiresome in spots, but his gleeful wickedness eventually turns monstrous when he comes to blows in one very long-winded stash with Kubots and Kirishima. His mask design though is of nightmares, and rarely does he take it off when in ghoul form. The other performance to standout was Maika Yamamoto as Kirishima. She really does hold her own, and even takes on more of a role. I found her to be even more cold, cynical and aloof than the actress who protrayed the character in the first film, but her presence was strong enough I thought the scenes without her weren't as engaging. There was pain and sorrow underneath her hard shell, and you see it, via only small cracks and the growth in her character is very evident by the end. In a way I feel like her character is developed and gets a lot more to do especially in ghoul form, even with less screen time than Kaneki. He feels secondary whenever both are on screen. Honestly Kubota is overshadowed by Yamamoto and especially Tsukiyama in every scene they share.

There are some plot points, and minor incidents from the first film that get expanded in this sequel. The first half is its own beast in setting up the players in the ghoul underworld, but come the second half it seemed to follow the same story route as the first film. This occurs when the ghoul who was the classmate that tried to kill Kaneki in the first film comes into the picture along with his human girlfriend. Then it sort plays out in a typical fashion through to the end. Also there's a surprise reveal midway through the end credits.

Tokyo Ghoul S was a good follow-up, although I think I expected a little more from it, yet the performances mainly shine and I could see myself probably liking it more on a repeat viewing. I see on IMDb this sequel seems to be liked a lot better than the first film. I think you'll get something out of this film Chalice_Of_Evil .

Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Jul 31, 2019 7:39:34 GMT

Tokyo Ghoul S (2019) virtually continues the story that began in Tokyo Ghoul. This time the white doves, and even human characters get little screen time, with the focus squarely on the ghouls. This follow up looks a little more polished and even stylish in the way it was shot (despite some abrupt editing between transitioning scenes), possibly a larger budget, but then again the film holds back on the CGI and action set-pieces which makes you second guess. There are a couple striking scenes, like the opening introduction of the creepy ghoul villain, the ghoul restaurant horrifyingly in full force and film's final ghoulish standoff. Outside of those moments, everything else felt slow and less memorable. Although I did like the constant interactions between Masataka Kubota and Maika Yamamoto's lead characters. Sure there are high stakes, but its more talky and burdened by emotional weight. In some ways it feels more personal and invested in its character's turmoils than the first film, but less exciting and frenetic in its action-thrills. It still provides a WTF, or brutal moment here and there, but the rush is over in seconds.

Kubota's half-ghoul, half-human character Kaneki feels like he took a back-step and in doing so came across much weaker. It definitely shows in the training scene between Kubota and Kirishima early on. He's still battling his affliction, and scared of transforming. There are moments when you think he would break out. Being pushed to the edge, but his character keeps it in check for the majority of the film. Which for me at times became frustrating. He transforms only once, for around 10 or so seconds and that's at the very end. While his trademark mask isn't even seen. It's Nobuyuki Suzuki who steals the show from everyone as Shuu Tsukiyama. A murderous ghoul with epicurean desires and suave fashion sense. He takes real fancy to Kaneki's scent. Tsukiyama truly camps it up, some moments made me chuckle with his over-the-top mannerisms and I don't know if I was meant to either. After while I found his character's actions began to get tiresome in spots, but his gleeful wickedness eventually turns monstrous when he comes to blows in one very long-winded stash with Kubots and Kirishima. His mask design though is of nightmares, and rarely does he take it off when in ghoul form. The other performance to standout was Maika Yamamoto as Kirishima. She really does hold her own, and even takes on more of a role. I found her to be even more cold, cynical and aloof than the actress who protrayed the character in the first film, but her presence was strong enough I thought the scenes without her weren't as engaging. There was pain and sorrow underneath her hard shell, and you see it, via only small cracks and the growth in her character is very evident by the end. In a way I feel like her character is developed and gets a lot more to do especially in ghoul form, even with less screen time than Kaneki. He feels secondary whenever both are on screen. Honestly Kubota is overshadowed by Yamamoto and especially Tsukiyama in every scene they share.

There are some plot points, and minor incidents from the first film that get expanded in this sequel. The first half is its own beast in setting up the players in the ghoul underworld, but come the second half it seemed to follow the same story route as the first film. This occurs when the ghoul who was the classmate that tried to kill Kaneki in the first film comes into the picture along with his human girlfriend. Then it sort plays out in a typical fashion through to the end. Also there's a surprise reveal midway through the end credits.

Tokyo Ghoul S was a good follow-up, although I think I expected a little more from it, yet the performances mainly shine and I could see myself probably liking it more on a repeat viewing. I see on IMDb this sequel seems to be liked a lot better than the first film. I think you'll get something out of this film Chalice_Of_Evil .

Excellent review of the film, lostinlimbo. Thank you for that. It does sound like there'll be things I might like and somewhat dislike about the sequel when I eventually see it (but that's to be expected, I guess). I do look forward to watching it eventually, though. It's interesting to hear you say that you found the actress playing Touka in this film "even more cold, cynical and aloof than the actress who portrayed the character in the first film". When I saw the new actress who'd been cast in the role, she appeared to me as slightly 'softer' (not the best word to describe what I mean. Maybe 'less harsh' would be a better description?), whereas I thought the first actress really did appear 'cold', but at the same time did a good job of showing slight cracks in her 'hard shell'.

Anyway, I guess I'll just have to wait until I see the film before I form an opinion on it and the performances/characters, but thanks again for offering your thoughts/opinions on the film and posting this review of it. I appreciate you taking the time to type it up.

Post by lostinlimbo on Jul 31, 2019 9:41:03 GMT

Tokyo Ghoul S (2019) virtually continues the story that began in Tokyo Ghoul. This time the white doves, and even human characters get little screen time, with the focus squarely on the ghouls. This follow up looks a little more polished and even stylish in the way it was shot (despite some abrupt editing between transitioning scenes), possibly a larger budget, but then again the film holds back on the CGI and action set-pieces which makes you second guess. There are a couple striking scenes, like the opening introduction of the creepy ghoul villain, the ghoul restaurant horrifyingly in full force and film's final ghoulish standoff. Outside of those moments, everything else felt slow and less memorable. Although I did like the constant interactions between Masataka Kubota and Maika Yamamoto's lead characters. Sure there are high stakes, but its more talky and burdened by emotional weight. In some ways it feels more personal and invested in its character's turmoils than the first film, but less exciting and frenetic in its action-thrills. It still provides a WTF, or brutal moment here and there, but the rush is over in seconds.

Kubota's half-ghoul, half-human character Kaneki feels like he took a back-step and in doing so came across much weaker. It definitely shows in the training scene between Kubota and Kirishima early on. He's still battling his affliction, and scared of transforming. There are moments when you think he would break out. Being pushed to the edge, but his character keeps it in check for the majority of the film. Which for me at times became frustrating. He transforms only once, for around 10 or so seconds and that's at the very end. While his trademark mask isn't even seen. It's Nobuyuki Suzuki who steals the show from everyone as Shuu Tsukiyama. A murderous ghoul with epicurean desires and suave fashion sense. He takes real fancy to Kaneki's scent. Tsukiyama truly camps it up, some moments made me chuckle with his over-the-top mannerisms and I don't know if I was meant to either. After while I found his character's actions began to get tiresome in spots, but his gleeful wickedness eventually turns monstrous when he comes to blows in one very long-winded stash with Kubots and Kirishima. His mask design though is of nightmares, and rarely does he take it off when in ghoul form. The other performance to standout was Maika Yamamoto as Kirishima. She really does hold her own, and even takes on more of a role. I found her to be even more cold, cynical and aloof than the actress who protrayed the character in the first film, but her presence was strong enough I thought the scenes without her weren't as engaging. There was pain and sorrow underneath her hard shell, and you see it, via only small cracks and the growth in her character is very evident by the end. In a way I feel like her character is developed and gets a lot more to do especially in ghoul form, even with less screen time than Kaneki. He feels secondary whenever both are on screen. Honestly Kubota is overshadowed by Yamamoto and especially Tsukiyama in every scene they share.

There are some plot points, and minor incidents from the first film that get expanded in this sequel. The first half is its own beast in setting up the players in the ghoul underworld, but come the second half it seemed to follow the same story route as the first film. This occurs when the ghoul who was the classmate that tried to kill Kaneki in the first film comes into the picture along with his human girlfriend. Then it sort plays out in a typical fashion through to the end. Also there's a surprise reveal midway through the end credits.

Tokyo Ghoul S was a good follow-up, although I think I expected a little more from it, yet the performances mainly shine and I could see myself probably liking it more on a repeat viewing. I see on IMDb this sequel seems to be liked a lot better than the first film. I think you'll get something out of this film Chalice_Of_Evil .

Excellent review of the film, lostinlimbo. Thank you for that. It does sound like there'll be things I might like and somewhat dislike about the sequel when I eventually see it (but that's to be expected, I guess). I do look forward to watching it eventually, though. It's interesting to hear you say that you found the actress playing Touka in this film "even more cold, cynical and aloof than the actress who portrayed the character in the first film". When I saw the new actress who'd been cast in the role, she appeared to me as slightly 'softer' (not the best word to describe what I mean. Maybe 'less harsh' would be a better description?), whereas I thought the first actress really did appear 'cold', but at the same time did a good job of showing slight cracks in her 'hard shell'.

Anyway, I guess I'll just have to wait until I see the film before I form an opinion on it and the performances/characters, but thanks again for offering your thoughts/opinions on the film and posting this review of it. I appreciate you taking the time to type it up.

Thanks for kind words.

I’d rate it probably 3 stars, while the original after rewatching it again would be 4 stars.

For me the old Touka came across more feisty, and her appearance does emit a coldness, but her interactions with her human friend, and other ghouls felt genuinely warm in the first film. The only time I felt she was agitated, or glacial was whenever she was around Ken, or white doves.

True the new Touka doesn’t have the cold appearance of the original Touka, however she’s very distant and when she isn’t tight-lipped she’s snarky to everyone (the exception being coffee shop owner). She’s more so cold, and emotionless in her actions with what feels like less desire. But I contribute this more to how the story plays out, and the journey of her character after the events of the first film.

One thing I forgot to mention; the CGI does look better despite not going full ball. It was probably the thing that surprised me most about the sequel, especially since the original really pushed the computer graphics of the transformations. Therefore you could say it was less ambitious this time around.

Post by lostinlimbo on Aug 4, 2019 12:02:19 GMT

Catacombs (2007)All build-up (mainly centred on a frightened Shannon Sossamon running around the catacombs), and not particularly exciting either. Leads to a lame reveal, and in the end it sort of rubbed me up the wrong way, especially Pink’s unpleasant character.

Post by DebLovesBeccy on Aug 9, 2019 12:34:12 GMT

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you on this. I agree with you about Stephen King's cameos and I liked that one in 'Maximum Overdrive' too and it is funny to see such a serious Author like Stephen King making fun of himself in a movie like that but despite his reputation for writing scary stories he does have a sense of humour and I would like to see him do some more cameos in movies again and with all the adaptions of his works that are in development now which are literally dozens of movies and TV Shows he could make one or two again if he wanted to. I don’t think there has been another Author who has had this many of their stories adapted to screen and I wouldn’t be surprised if every one of his novels is eventually adapted as a movie or a TV Show ‘cause his stories are very popular and he will most likely go down as the most popular Horror writer of all time.

I always liked the first 6 ‘Children of the Corn’ movies and while they haven’t been the most popular Horror franchise they have their fair share of fans which is why there have been so many movies and I know a lot of Horror fans who liked the first three. ‘Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest’ was one of the standouts and I liked how we actually got to see ‘He Who Walks Behind the Rows come out of the ground in his huge monster form even though it does look kinda fake now and Naomi Watts was great in ‘Children of the Corn 4’ even though the movie kinda threw continuity out the window and I think Naomi is underrated as an actress and like a lot of her movies especially ‘The Ring’ which is one of my favourite Horror movies of all time and one of the best Horror remakes ever made in my opinion.

I am glad you liked the ‘Sometimes They Come Back’ franchise and those are one of his lesser known franchises I would suggest to a lot of Stephen King and Horror fans to checkout even though they are not perfect and have their flaws but it’s funny and strange at the same time how stories like that and ‘Children of the Corn’ have had so many adaptions yet ‘The Dark Tower’ has only had one movie and that has had 8 novels and many people see it as a masterpiece. I hope the next adaption does justice to the novels and am glad they are making into a TV Show instead of trying to squash it down ‘cause I think it is too big of a story to just be a movie or even a movie franchise and a TV Show will let them do so much more with it that they couldn’t do under the limitations of a movie.

Thanks for letting me know what your favourite Stephen King adaptions are and I liked a lot of those too and I have to ask you if you have ever seen the TV show of ‘The Dead Zone’ ‘cause I haven’t seen or talked to many people on here that have seen that and it went for a number of seasons and had a following back when it was on air. Just don’t know where that following has gone. lol If you haven’t seen it I would suggest you watch the first season of it one day to see if you like it ‘cause I thought it was pretty good and we watched it on Foxtel and got all the seasons in a big box set years ago. ‘The Mangler’ and ‘Dreamcatcher’ weren’t great. Although I have seen some people call ‘Dreamcatcher’ a masterpiece and the greatest Stephen King adaption ever made and I got kinda bored watching it the first time and remember nearly falling asleep until it picked up lol and I have seen ‘The Tommyknockers’ with Jimmy Smits a couple of times and it is not great but I enjoyed some parts of it and did you know it takes place in Haven? I am surprised they never had the Tommyknockers on the show or mentioned them.

That’s all good. When was the last time King even appeared in one of his film adaptations?

I’ve only watched the first three Children of the Corn, and bits of Issac’s Return. Always been curious of the fourth film due to a few of names involved. I liked the concept of ‘Sometimes they Come Back’, and Tim Matheson and Brooke Adams gave the film some extra weight. Is the third film any good?

Dreamcatcher... a masterpiece to some? Did I miss something 😁 That would have been a nice little touch if they had converse Tommyknockers and Haven for an episode. I had no idea it was meant to be the same town.

I remember watching the TV series ‘The Dead Zone’, but honestly I don’t remember much of the details, or how far I got into it. Not that far, I don’t think. If I was to watch it again, it would like starting all over. It was on free to air, I think? I remember it suddenly disappeared (possibly halfway through a season) for quite a while and then returned becoming a forgotten late night staple. I don’t think ever watched any of those seasons/episodes when it was booted from prime time.

Have you seen the clips for the new ‘Creepshow’ tv series. Looks like it could be fun.

That's a good question. It seemed like he was appearing in a lot of his adaptions at one point and then he just stopped and I looked it up on Wikipedia and the last time Stephen King appeared in an adaption of his work was apparently in an episode of 'Mr Mercedes' but that must have been a really short appearance or he looked different and I didn't recognise him 'cause we have watched the first two seasons of that show and I don't remember him appearing in it. He also appeared in an episode of 'Under the Dome' but aside from those two appearances the last one he made in one of his adaptions was in the 'Kingdom Hospital' TV Show back in 2004 and it looks like that was the time he stopped since he appeared in a lot more of them before that. I liked 'Children of the Corn 4: The Gathering' and it was different than the other movies and was the first to not mention "He Who Walks Behind the Rows" or have any connection to the other movies but I enjoyed it and thought Naomi Watts was good in her role. I didn't hate 'Isaac's Return' and I would rate it as one of the better movies in the franchise that we can re-watch but it was disappointing and I think it could have a lot better under different writers. I will say I thought John Franklin did a great job of playing Isaac again with the material he was given and he came across as even creepier as an adult but the way they used him was disappointing.

The third movie in the 'Sometimes They Come Back' franchise wasn't as good as the other two movies but it was better than some other sequels I have seen over the years but yeah, 'Dreamcatcher' was far from brilliant and I don't know what those people saw in the movie but we occasionally have a bad movie come out like that which some people praise and praise and then when they watch it again later they realise it might not have been as good as they thought it was. The 'Tommyknockers' did indeed take place in Haven and it would have been fun if they had found a way to include them in the show and if it had been renewed for another season after the Troubles had ended they could have moved on to the Tommyknockers with Audrey (Paige at the end), Nathan, Dwight and others trying to stop them from taking over Haven and then 'Haven' would have been based on two of Stephen King's novels. I remember watching 'The Dead Zone' too but I don't remember it being on free to air and we watched it on Foxtel and it was on the Universal Channel and Syfy Channel and it did disappear and come back 'cause it was cancelled and another network picked it up and it was one of the few times fans have campaigned to save a show and it was brought back but then it was cancelled again and sadly didn't get a proper ending but but I have re-watched the show and still enjoy it.

I hadn't seen those clips but thanks for sharing them with me. I am looking forward to the new 'Creepshow' and it is not going to be a remake of the two previous adaptions like some fans thought and will have new stories including one by Stephen's son, Joe Hill. Have you heard the latest news about 'Lisey's Story?'

Two years ago, Stephen King was asked which of his stories he’d most like to see an adaptation of, and his response was Lisey’s Story, published in 2006. King is getting his wish, as we recently learned, with Apple giving an eight-episode, straight-to-series order to a small screen adaptation of Lisey’s Story. The best news? King himself is writing all eight episodes!

Julianne Moore is attached to star, and the actress revealed this week during a chat with Boston Globe that Pablo Larrain (Jackie) is on board to direct the episodes.

Shooting is expected to take place this Fall.

The series is described as a deeply personal thriller that follows Lisey (Moore) two years following the death of her husband.

“The series explores a series of events that causes her to begin facing amazing realities about her husband that she had repressed and forgotten.”

J.J. Abrams is on board to produce through Bad Robot Productions. Julianne Moore, Stephen King and Ben Stephenson will executive produce.

Post by Lebowskidoo on Aug 10, 2019 10:29:43 GMT

Sleepaway Camp IV: The Survivior (1992)

This is why horror gets no respect sometimes. They produce a Frankenstein's monster of a movie like this clip show and they know we'll show up for it anyway. And here I am, trying to complete the series, watching it too...even though I just saw all of this earlier in the week when I watched the series from the beginning.

There's a few shots added in from some aborted attempt at making a sequel that got shutdown. They add almost nothing. You're basically just rewatching the best bits from the first three movies.

Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 10, 2019 10:38:50 GMT

I really dislike this reboot of Dawn Of The Dead deb. I bought a copy earlier on in the year to re-vist and to see if my mind would change about it, because there is a lot of love for the film, but I still didn't like it. I got rid of it, just a quick as I bought it.

It really doesn't work in well with me and there is something perfunctory and if you would pardon the pun, dead about it.

Post by jamesbamesy on Aug 13, 2019 14:18:44 GMT

Re-Animator (1985) - 8/10

I really don’t know why I was missing out on this one. Kind of like a zombie movie but not in the standard, traditional fashion. This is a great cult classic with impressive SFX. But of course Jeffrey Combs as Herbert West was awesome, and this is the film that made him earn his place in the horror world. The only thing is that the ending was kind of bad; not a very satisfying conclusion. But leading up to that, it’s very fun.

"Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, 'In this world, Elwood, you must be' — she always called me Elwood — 'In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." — James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd

Not only are eyes windows to the soul, but our eyes look to the skies for home.

Post by Sarge on Aug 13, 2019 19:00:20 GMT

I really don’t know why I was missing out on this one. Kind of like a zombie movie but not in the standard, traditional fashion. This is a great cult classic with impressive SFX. But of course Jeffrey Combs as Herbert West was awesome, and this is the film that made him earn his place in the horror world. The only thing is that the ending was kind of bad; not a very satisfying conclusion. But leading up to that, it’s very fun.

Post by jamesbamesy on Aug 13, 2019 19:02:16 GMT

I really don’t know why I was missing out on this one. Kind of like a zombie movie but not in the standard, traditional fashion. This is a great cult classic with impressive SFX. But of course Jeffrey Combs as Herbert West was awesome, and this is the film that made him earn his place in the horror world. The only thing is that the ending was kind of bad; not a very satisfying conclusion. But leading up to that, it’s very fun.

Reanimator is a reimagining of Frankenstein and is very well done.

Yeah, it is similar in the way that both stories involve a science expert brings dead body parts to life.